Sobhag Mal Jain, J. - (1.) All these appeals involve common questions. They were heard together and can, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) The plaintiff in all the civil suits was common. These cases relate to the sale of land in village 2-H, Bada, Tehsil Ganganagar. Except the names of the defendants and the property sold in their favour, the facts are similar. The following table would show the names of the defendants and the property involved in these appeals JUDGEMENT_56_LAWS(RAJ)3_1990.html
(3.) It would be sufficient if I set out, in brief, the facts of Civil Suit No. 63 of 1983, Balu Ram v. Ranjeet Singh , the facts whereof alone have been referred to by the counsel for the parties at the time of arguments. The facts are: By a registered sale deed dated the 20th August, 1980, Balu Ram, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, sold the suit land to Ranveer Singh, referred to as the defendant, for a sum of Rs. 22,500.00. The defendant was not in a position to pay the amount of Rs. 22,500.00 and, therefore, he executed a pro-note for Rs. 22,500.00 in favour of the plaintiff, promising to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of Rs. 0.50 paise per cent per month. The defendant failed to pay anything despite demands by Balu Ram. Therefore a fresh agreement was executed between the parties on February 11, 1982. As per this agreement, the defendant promised to pay the aforesaid amount by July 31, 1983 and, if he failed to pay the same, to reconvey the land to the plaintiff at the same price. In case of failure by the defendant to execute the registered said deed, the-plaintiff was given the right to get a sale deed executed and registered in his favour through Court. It was also mentioned in the agreement that this amount would have a charge over the land. The defendant failed to make the payment by the due date. A notice was then sent to the defendant on. August 2, 1983, who in reply to the same, declined to execute the sale deed. On August 17, 1983 the present suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the contract for the sale of the land in favour of the plaintiff. In the written statement, the defendant admitted the execution of the sale deed. It was also admitted that no payment whatsoever was made to the plaintiff. The execution of the agreement dated February 11, 1982, was also admitted. It was also not denied that the amount of the pro note was not paid by the stipulated date i.e. July 31, 1983. It was, however, pleaded that the agreement dated February 11, 1982 was executed under pressure. The defendant never agreed to resale the land to the plaintiff. The agreement was merely to assure the payment to the plaintiff. It was also alleged that July 31, 1983 was not the essence of the contract. It was also pleaded that the defendant was ready and willing to pay the amount of the pro-note but the plaintiff did not accept the same. The plaintiff got a revenue suit filed by his son Prem Prakash in the Court of Assistant Collector, Sri Ganganagar, for partition, on May 23, 1983, and got a receiver appointed on July 18, 1983.;